[s-cars] On the Road Again - Sorry

[Eric Phillips]

> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:02:44 EST
> From: Djdawson2 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] On the Road Again - Sorry
>
>
>
> Well, the "tone" seems to question (once again) the validity of the  numbers.
>  To me, this is unreasonable.  We go to the dyno for  quantitative facts.  If
> we present those facts, and then get questioned,  what are we questioning?
> If we are simply questioning "how does it do  that?"... cool.  If we are
> speculating on the figures themselves... then  we're questioning honesty.

That's really the problem - there is no "tone" in written
conversation.  If I raise my eyebrows while we're talking, and say,
"Really?", that implies that I am sceptical, but probably willing to
hear more.  Likewise, if I am typing something with a twinkle in my
eye, and a smile on my lips, you can't see that, and have no idea that
my comments are light-hearted.


> IMHO, questions are certainly never bad.  Again, "how did he do  that?"...
> great.  "Are the numbers real... that can't be."... no  good.  To me, that
> crosses the line of questioning someone's  integrity.

I don't know about that - math mistakes are easy to make.  I've made
plenty, and asking about how the numbers came out that way is really
just a way to make sure everyone is using the same numbers, formulae
and assumptions.

I was bit recently by this communication thing when I wrote
"Europrice" and "scam" on the same page.  I had no intention of
connecting the two, but the way I worded it made it sound like they
were connected.  I am 100% certain that if we were all around a table,
drinking some sort of BEvERage, nobody would have even considered the
idea that I was questioning someone's integrity.  They might have
thought me a little odd or paranoid (probably true) but not that I was
jumping on someone's reputation.  Written comms suck for nuance.

[/rant]

--
Eric

1995 UrS6 "Silber Geist"